[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20478-20481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10171]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242-0327; FRL-7201-5]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial 
County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District, and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval to 
revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 
(ICAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 
VOC emissions from the storage and transfer of gasoline. We are also 
proposing full approval of a revision to the Santa Barbara County Air 
Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portion of the California State 
SIP concerning VOC emissions from loading organic liquid cargo vessels. 
We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission 
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's 
technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule 
revisions and TSDs at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South 9th Street, 
El Centro, CA 92243.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, 
Ventura, CA 93003.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian 
Drive, Suite B-23, Goleta, CA 93117.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
    E. Public comment and final action
III. Background Information
    A. Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                   Rule #               Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD..................................          415  Transfer and Storage of             09/14/99     05/26/00
                                                        Gasoline.
VCAPCD..................................           70  Storage and Transfer of             11/14/00     05/08/01
                                                        Gasoline.
SBCAPCD.................................          346  Loading of Organic Liquid Cargo     01/18/01     05/08/01
                                                        Vessels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 6, 2000, July 20, 2001, and July 20, 2001, respectively, 
these submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 
part 51 appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved into the SIP ICAPCD Rule 415 on August 11, 1978 (43 FR 
35694) and ICAPCD Rule 415.1 on November 10, 1980 (45 FR 74480). These 
rules were combined into submitted ICAPCD Rule 415.
    We approved into the SIP a version of VCAPCD Rule 70 on May 13, 
1997 (64 FR 66393).
    We approved into the SIP a version of SBCAPCD Rule 346 on January 
24, 1995 (60 FR 4562).

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    A purpose of revisions to ICAPCD Rule 415 is to combine Rule 415 
and 415.1 into a single rule to which the gasoline storage provisions 
from Rule 414 were also added. Another purpose is to add or make more 
stringent gasoline vapor emission requirements and to add test methods 
and recordkeeping requirements. ICAPCD Rule 415 regulates gasoline 
storage and transfer at bulk terminals, bulk plants, and gasoline 
dispensing stations.
    One purpose of revisions to VCAPCD Rule 70 is to exempt gasoline 
dispensing facilities on Anacapa Island and San Nicolas Island from 
testing requirements. A second purpose is to delete the preemption of 
test methods and test frequencies by those specified by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Order for vapor recovery 
equipment, unless the CARB requirement is more frequent. A third 
purpose is to increase the frequency of reverification testing for the 
air-to-liquid volume ratio to once per year.
    The purposes of revisions to SBCAPCD Rule 346 are to add a limit of 
20,000 gallons per day of organic liquid transfer into cargo vessels 
from a loading facility, to add a compliance schedule, and to revise 
which test methods are specified.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
CAA), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

[[Page 20479]]

for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), 
and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).
    The VCAPCD and SBCAPCD regulate severe ozone nonattainment areas 
(see 40 CFR 81), therefore Rules 70 and 346 must fulfill RACT 
requirements for VOCs.
    However, the ICAPCD regulates a section 185A transitional area for 
ozone. 40 CFR 81. We originally designated Imperial County as 
nonattainment for oxidant (now ozone) under the provisions of the CAA 
Amendments of 1977 (1977 Act). 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). On April 1, 
1980, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on revisions 
to the Imperial County portion of the California SIP that were 
submitted to us to address planning requirements for nonattainment 
areas under Part D of the 1977 Act. 45 FR 21297 (April 1, 1980). Our 
1980 NPRM indicated that Imperial County sought to comply with the Part 
D requirement for application of RACT through two local regulations: 
ICAPCD rule 415.1, Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers, and 
ICAPCD rule 413, Storage of Petroleum Products, but we concluded that 
an additional RACT rule, one controlling emissions from cutback 
asphalt, would also be required. On November 10, 1980, we published our 
final rule conditionally approving the Imperial County Plan to Attain 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxidants (October 31, 1978) 
(Plan). 45 FR 74480 (November 10, 1980).
    ICAPCD Rule 415 contains enforcement-related deficiencies that 
preclude full approval. According to the General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 
FR 13525 (April 16, 1992) and our conditional approval of the Plan, we 
may impose CAA section 179 sanctions for enforcement-related 
deficiencies only on three pre-1990 VOC RACT rules: Rule 415.1, 
Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers (Phase I), Rule 413, 
Storage of Petroleum Products, and Rule 418.1, Cutback Asphalt. The 
enforcement related deficiencies cited above for Rule 415 do not 
originate from the Rule 415.1 (Phase I) portion of Rule 415. Therefore, 
we can not impose sanctions if the deficiencies are not corrected.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51
     Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon 
monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987).
     Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, 
and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 
Federal Register Notice, (Blue Book), notice of availability published 
in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
     Draft Model Rule, Gasoline Dispensing Facility-Stage II 
Vapor Recovery, EPA (August 17, 1992).
     Gasoline Vapor Recovery Guidelines, EPA Region IX (April 
24, 2000).
     Model Volatile Organic Compound Rule for Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT),'' Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards (June 1992).
     Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 
Terminals, EPA-450/2-77-026.
     Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline 
Plants, EPA-450/2-77-035.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    ICAPCD Rule 415 improves the SIP by establishing new or more 
stringent emission limits and by adding monitoring and recordkeeping 
provisions. VCAPCD Rule 70 improves the SIP by increasing the frequency 
of some testing. These rules are largely consistent with the relevant 
policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 
relaxations. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria 
are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.
    SBCAPCD Rule 346 improves the SIP by limiting the quantity of daily 
gasoline transfer into cargo vessels and by adding a compliance 
schedule.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    This deficiency in VCAPCD Rule 70 conflicts with section 110 and 
part D of the CAA and prevents full approval:
     Sections H.1.c, H.2.b, H.3, and H.7.a: Reverification of 
the performance tests of the vapor recovery system originally required 
by the CARB Executive Order should be performed more frequently. EPA 
recommends reverification of performance tests once every 6-12 months 
in order to fulfill RACT.
    These deficiencies in ICAPCD Rule 415 conflict with section 110 and 
part D of the CAA and prevent full approval:
     Section B.5: Performance tests on Phase II vapor recovery 
systems should be performed within 30 days of modification or 
installation.
     Section B.5: Reverification of performance tests on Phase 
II vapor recovery systems should be performed periodically to verify 
continued proper operation.
     Section C: Specific test methods on Phase II vapor 
recovery systems should be provided, at a minimum, for the following 
initial performance tests typically used at various types of gasoline 
dispensing stations: Static Pressure Test, Dynamic Back Pressure Test, 
Air-to-Liquid Volume Ratio Test, and Liquid Removal Rate Test.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules.

E. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of ICAPCD Rule 415 and VCAPCD Rule 70 to 
improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the 
submitted rules into the SIP, including those provisions identified as 
deficient. This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously 
proposing a limited disapproval of the rules under section 110(k)(3). 
If the disapproval of ICAPCD Rule 415 is finalized, sanctions will not 
be imposed. If the disapproval of VCAPCD Rule 70 is finalized, 
sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the CAA unless EPA 
approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiency 
within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed as described in 59 
FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). A final disapproval would also trigger the 
federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 
Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the ICAPCD and 
VCAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local 
agencies from enforcing them.
    EPA is also proposing a full approval of SBCAPCD Rule 346 to 
improve the SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approvals and limited disapprovals for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section

[[Page 20480]]

110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control 
VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to 
the submittal of these local agency VOC rules.

                Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978................  EPA promulgated a list of ozone
                                nonattainment areas under the Clean Air
                                Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40
                                CFR 81.305.
May 26, 1988.................  EPA notified Governors that parts of
                                their SIPs were inadequate to attain and
                                maintain the ozone standard and
                                requested that they correct the
                                deficiencies (EPA's SIP-Call). See
                                section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended
                                Act.
November 15, 1990............  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were
                                enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat.
                                2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-76761q.
May 15, 1991.................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone
                                nonattainment areas correct deficient
                                RACT rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13211

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.

E. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new 
requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create

[[Page 20481]]

any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts on pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action 
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive 
to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 11, 2002.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-10171 Filed 4-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P